quote:

Originally posted by DevilDogUSMC I never made my opinion on a domestic issue in regards to our President and his actions on our civil liberties here. That being said, it's not fair that I am judged as not caring. ------------------------------------------------------------

Where did I say that you were not caring? I was simply applying the same standard that you were to me. You stated that I somehow had a disregard towards other countries' stripping of civil liberties but somehow caring so much more towards my own performing similar measures (albeit on different scales). But on the flip side of that specious argument to which I stated was inaccurate (and rather silly considering the care of American interests are a bit more interesting to me since I am, uhh, American), it implies that you are demonstrating a lack of concern for your own country by failing to display your dismay towards your own president stripping away liberties while continually bashing another country for doing the same (i.e. Venenzuela and Chavez).

My point is a simple one - neither your argument nor mine is correct, which is why your point was fallacious to even make.

quote:

On the chavez threads, this is only my second thread about him. Maybe I could have if I wanted to, posted it in another chavez thread. But considering most somehow turn off-topic into a Bush bashing thread, I decided to make a fresh one as I believe I have the freedom to. Sue me. I'm not going to be intimitated by some 'dudes on the internet'.

My goodness, if I didn't know any better I'd say you have a slight sense of paranoia. Again I will assert:

quote:

Easy, chief. I won't pretend to be a moderator nor would I ever want to be one. My intention was not to "push you around" - it was only a suggestion and has only the power of such. It was a suggestion for future reference, nothing more.

Now surely you can understand the distinction between a suggestion versus intimidation here? I do hope you know the difference of my intentions. If not, let me break some bread and state that I apologize if you felt intimidated or push around in any way. I understand and acknowledge that this was your second thread on this subject. My suggestion was more or less not directly in its entirety towards you but towards the totality of posts on Chavez in general (3 altogether at that time, not including Shakka's jab ).

I also understand your point about hijacked threads. Just understand that it happens all the time. I too get frustrated at it - in fact I once killed a thread altogether as a consequence of it being hijacked. If I were to make a suggestion on this, however, I would propose that you try to stear that particular thread back on topic first before killing it or starting a new one. Again, let's not get our panties in a bunch on this. I think we've both said more than enough already.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

quote:

Originally posted by metalgearsolid Dude. That isn't just any dude. He is a 40yr old dude with children a wife. And oddly enough he is still in college.

I've got children? Damn, the Mrs. must have been hiding them all this time. Criminity!

Yeah, I know - still in college, attaining my 3rd and final stinkin' degree. But 40? Please tell me you're joking. I just got a little coffee up my nose when I read this.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

quote:

Originally posted by DevilDogUSMC And how come you guys go nuts if Bush does anything that can be construed as hurting civil liberties or our freedom, but a president like chavez or putin rollback democratic reforms and you're all silent? You change the subject of the thread, you question the need for a thread about a new news article about a country's presidential election.

Show me how Putin rolled back democratic reforms, Doc.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 I've got children? Damn, the Mrs. must have been hiding them all this time. Criminity!

I KNEW IT!!! The lil' Opusites--they're EVERYWHERE!

quote:

Originally posted by star-traveller Show me how Putin rolled back democratic reforms, Doc.

This would certainly add credence to his case, dontcha think?

quote:

Russian Government Sets Plans To Nationalize Yukos's Chief Unit By GREGORY L. WHITE and BHUSHAN BAHREE Staff Reporters of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL December 31, 2004 Effectively nationalizing the heart of OAO Yukos, Russia's government said it would form a new state oil company based on what had been the embattled oil giant's core operation and offer a minority stake in the new concern to the world's fastest-rising energy consumer, China. The plan confirms Vladimir Putin's determination to control the country's most valuable resources -- oil and natural gas -- and deploy them to Russia's strategic advantage. State ownership of the Yukos unit Yuganskneftegaz, a Siberian giant that singlehandedly produces 1% of the world's crude -- as much as Indonesia -- would supplement the Kremlin's control over gas titan OAO Gazprom, which had been the front-runner to take over the Yukos operation. Gazprom's bid ran into an unexpected hitch when a U.S. court issued an order blocking the company and its Western lenders from participating in the government sale of Yuganskneftegaz, often called Yugansk. The Kremlin scoffed at the order, but the lenders abided by it, forcing Moscow to resort to a hastily contrived scheme involving a front company. That plans appears to have proved too complex. THE RUNDOWN See the main players1 in the Yugos saga and what's next in the oil titan's fight for survival. The new plan might simplify the shift of Yukos assets, and it could be a major boost to energy-hungry China's efforts to get access to fuel reserves around the world. China has been pursuing deals in Ecuador, war-torn Sudan, Canada and Iran, but with mostly modest results so far. It hasn't clinched ownership of a large, traditional oil-producing asset like Yugansk. While China's apparent willingness to invest in the new company shows not all investors are jolted by Moscow's dismantling of Yukos, many foreign shareholders in Russia have been. Foreigners once owned more than a third of Yukos stock. Russia's stock market has been battered since the arrest in October 2003 of its politically ambitious main shareholder and chief executive, Mikhail Khodorkovsky, and the damage has deepened as the Kremlin has piled tax claims on the company that now total $28 billion. Yukos says the claims, along with fines and penalties, exceed the company's revenue for some of the years in question. U.S. investors own 15% of Yukos, and Washington has repeatedly criticized the Kremlin's handling of the Yukos case. Richard Mintz, a spokesman for Yukos in Washington, argued that regardless of the Kremlin's move, Yukos's assets remain protected by U.S. courts. The Kremlin's latest announcement "doesn't change anything," Mr. Mintz said. "And we will seek damages against any party or entity that interferes with them." A State Department official said the latest move, if true, means the Kremlin "has chosen a path contrary to the stated norms and values of a market economy and the rule of law. This will have a chilling effect on foreign investment as well as Russia's role in the global economy." The official said the department is seeking clarification of the Kremlin's plans. Russians also criticized the move: "These actions have inflicted colossal damage on the country," Kremlin economic adviser Andrei Illarionov said on Ekho Moskvy radio yesterday. "They were conducted in a monstrously incompetent way. ...It's becoming clear to all that there was no reason behind this other than a great desire to expropriate private property." The situation remains fluid and could still change, as it has several times in recent weeks. But yesterday's announcement came in an official statement from Viktor Khristenko, Russia's minister of industry and energy. It detailed earlier comments by the influential Kremlin chief of staff, who also holds the post of chairman of Gazprom's board. Mr. Khristenko said the government will create a new 100%-state-owned company based on Yuganskneftegaz. He said Moscow plans to offer as much as 20% to China National Petroleum Corp., in a deal that might allow the Russian company access to CNPC projects in China or elsewhere. Russian officials couldn't provide further details, and CNPC couldn't be reached for comment. China, which has been the single largest driver of surging world oil demand in recent years, has long sought a foothold in the Russian oil industry, which has been the main source of new oil supply on the world market during the past five years. To date, however, the Kremlin has blocked every Chinese attempt to buy privately owned oil assets, preferring to keep Beijing simply as a customer. Allowing CNPC to take a stake in Yugansk -- a 20% stake might cost the Chinese as much as $4 billion -- would help provide a veil of legitimacy for a transaction that otherwise amounts to nationalization, analysts said. Before the auction, Gazprom had discussed with several Western energy companies the possibility of selling a minority stake in Yugansk, but fears of lawsuits from Yukos undermined interest, according to people close to the situation. In yesterday's announcement, Mr. Khristenko said CNPC's possible participation in Yugansk had been agreed to during earlier talks between the governments. Mr. Putin was in Beijing in October and said at the time Russia would welcome Chinese investment in its energy industry. Last week, he hinted that China might be involved in a deal for Yugansk, but didn't provide details. Russian authorities sold Yugansk in a highly controversial auction Dec. 19 to pay off $28 billion in back-tax claims against Yukos. The tax claims are widely believed to be politically motivated, amounting to rates far beyond what the rest of the industry paid at the time. Yukos filed suit in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Houston to try to block the sale, but Russian officials pushed ahead. The U.S. Court said it doesn't have jurisdiction over the Russian government, but issued orders covering Gazprom and its lenders Yukos vowed to continue the fight against the sale, but analysts said the direct involvement of the Russian state in the new deal undermines the chances of success in foreign courts, which are typically loath to challenge overseas governments directly. Gazprom, which is state-controlled but has private shareholders, appeared during the past few days to be on track to acquire Yugansk. Gazprom seemed to have found a way around the U.S. court order by using the state oil company, OAO Rosneft, which is slated to be merged into Gazprom in 2005. But yesterday, Mr. Khristenko said that while the Rosneft merger will go ahead in January, the deal won't include Yugansk, because doing so would mean the state would have to increase its stake in Gazprom beyond the 50% plus one share it planned in the original Rosneft deal. The government has pledged to lift restrictions on foreign ownership of the rest of Gazprom shares once that merger is completed. There was no official word on how the $9.4 billion price for Yugansk will be paid. Analysts said Rosneft, small and already indebted, is unlikely to be able to raise that much money on its own. Gazprom's foreign lenders have refused to violate the U.S. court order. A government official said the possibility of state money being used is under consideration. "This is being decided at the highest levels," she said. Last week, Mr. Putin defended the auction as having been conducted using market methods, saying that the state was merely "ensuring its interests." Analysts said the latest moves suggested a hard-line Kremlin faction known as the siloviki -- literally meaning "men of power," the term refers to people affiliated with the security services -- had gained the upper hand. The faction favors greater state intervention in the economy. The government official said management of the new state oil company would "most likely" come from Rosneft. Those managers are widely viewed as close to the siloviki camp. "The U.S. court gave them a wonderful last-minute opportunity to go ahead with an asset grab they'd been hoping to pull off for months but that had been looking less likely," said Christopher Granville, strategist at United Financial Group, a Moscow investment house, referring to the court order blocking Gazprom's participation in the Yugansk auction. Liberal officials in the Russian government have been increasingly vocal in recent weeks about the chilling effect the Yukos case has had on investment and economic growth in Russia. Yukos and its main shareholders have pledged to continue fighting the Kremlin campaign against the company, but as pressure has mounted in recent weeks, most top executives have fled the country. This week, Yukos failed to make interest payments on some loans. Some analysts hope that Yukos could survive the onslaught in a shrunken form, preserving at least some value for shareholders, who have watched the stock drop from more than $15 a year ago to less than a dollar now. Russian authorities have said they will continue to pursue claims against the company's remaining assets for the rest of the tax bills, which still amount to more than $15 billion, suggesting Yukos might not survive. While the Kremlin appears to have killed a Yukos-sponsored plan to build an oil pipeline from Siberia to China in favor of its own plan for a line to the Pacific Ocean, Moscow has been very careful to ensure that current rail shipments of crude to China continue, even as Yukos, the main supplier, is being dismantled.

Pretty anti-democratic stuff, eh?

quote:

Business community fears Putin trying to re-nationalize economy Last Updated: Friday, October 31, 2003 | 11:28 AM ET CBC News The freezing of $15 billion worth of shares of a Russian billionaire charged with tax evasion has the business community worried the Russian president is reasserting state control over the economy. Hours after the decision to freeze Mikhail Khodorkovsky's Yukos Oil company shares, Vladimir Putin's pro-business chief of staff, Alexander Voloshin resigned in protest. Khodorkovsky, 40, who was head of Russia's largest oil company, was jailed six days ago. Those in the business community fear the arrest could be the first step in a Kremlin campaign to take back state assets privatized after the collapse of the Soviet Union. The events of recent weeks "include elements that must be interpreted as a reconsideration of the (country's) course," Interfax quoted Anatoly Chubais as saying. Chubais, who is currently heading Russia's electricity monopoly, Unified Energy Systems, was the architect of the post-Soviet privatization program. "They mask as economic charges but they are political charges," Yukos vice-president Hugo Erickson said, calling the charges "spurious." The oil executive is said to be facing charges of embezzlement, tax evasion, fraud, falsifying documents and refusing to cooperate with authorities. Others see the arrest as a government crackdown on Khodorkovsky for openly supporting liberal political parties opposed to Putin. Russian Finance Minister Alexi Kudrun has insisted the business community need not worry. He compared the Yukos case to the Enron Affair in the United States – strictly a criminal case. Putin has given similar assurances to foreign investors. But political analyst Michael McFaul says Putin is finally showing his true colors. "I think we made a mistake in thinking Putin wants Western-style capitalism."

Yeah, nothing new Yukos and Khodorkovsky.
Read more of The Economist and listen to Dick Cheney speeches.
You people say it's a joke to refer to David Duke articles, well in this case I can say it's a joke to refer to what you posted today.

Last edited by star-traveller on Jan-11-2007 at 22:43

quote:

Originally posted by star-traveller Yeah, nothing new Yukos and Khodorkovsky.

No kidding--the articles are from 2003 and 2004. Does that make it irrelevant or something? 3 years is too long ago for you? Imagine getting stuck with a tax bill for more than an entire year of revenues! And regardless it was blatant misuse of government force to seize assets. No questions asked. Fuck the investors. A clear step in the direction of westernized democracy!

quote:

Read more of The Economist and listen to Dick Cheney speeches.

I actually have a subscription. Just got it actually. A gift from the father in-law. I definitely read it for the articles, if you catch my drift.

quote:

You people say it's a joke to refer to David Duke articles,

Because it is and you should know it. Why don't you post your favorite David Duke excerpt and tell us all what you like about it? Gosh, if you love him so much, why don't you marry him?

quote:

well in this case I can say it's a joke to refer to what you posted today.

Care to elaborate?

quote:

Originally posted by star-traveller Show me how Putin rolled back democratic reforms, Doc.

Shutting down/revoking the licenses of news organisations that were not controlled by either the government or Putin backers is the #1 rollback of democratic reforms that there can be.


The absolute most important part of any true democracy is the access of information. When the information outlets are all controlled by those interested in keeping the current power brokers in power, democracy suffers.

Putin has also entertained the idea of changing the constitution to remove term limits.


MrS

___________________
Click the sig to see MrSquirrel

-"Reality" is the only word in the language that should always be used in quotes.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 it implies that you are demonstrating a lack of concern for your own country by failing to display your dismay towards your own president stripping away liberties while continually bashing another country for doing the same (i.e. Venenzuela and Chavez).

Geez, this thread is about chavez. Just because I don't
start critizing Bush out of nowhere does not mean I lack
concern about our country... So like I said, you people
need to quit bringing bush into every discussion. I make
a thread about chavez, and I'm accused of not caring about
civil liberties in the US and how it's Bush's fault...

When I choose to discuss my views on american civil liberties,
then judge me on what I say, not infering from a concern for
a latin american country's system. I care and some others
care to talk about it, my reason if you must know is I'm from
Latin America.

And continually bashing Venezuela? No just thier president
and his policies like shutting down opposition media outlets
and getting rid of term limits. Just like when you trash
Bush policies you wouldn't want people to say all you do
is bash America would you? There's a difference...

___________________

Electric Zoo 2010! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DVE-RutexSE

quote:

Originally posted by DevilDogUSMC Geez, this thread is about chavez. Just because I don't start critizing Bush out of nowhere does not mean I lack concern about our country... So like I said, you people need to quit bringing bush into every discussion. I make a thread about chavez, and I'm accused of not caring about civil liberties in the US and how it's Bush's fault... When I choose to discuss my views on american civil liberties, then judge me on what I say, not infering from a concern for a latin american country's system. I care and some others care to talk about it, my reason if you must know is I'm from Latin America. And continually bashing Venezuela? No just thier president and his policies like shutting down opposition media outlets and getting rid of term limits. Just like when you trash Bush policies you wouldn't want people to say all you do is bash America would you? There's a difference...

*sigh*

This is the last time I'm going to repeat this. If you have troubles with my argument from here on out, PM me and I'll try and clarify it more slowly than I'm about to do it right here. Seriously, there shouldn't be ANY need to do this, but it's almost downright entertaining so here it goes (one last time):

1. YOU are the one that brought Bush into this picture by asking why we show so much concern for his stripping of civil liberties but seemingly show no concern for other countries doing the same such as Venenzuela

2. I was the one who stated that I am concerned on anyone who does it, but my concern is mostly for the country to which I reside especially when we are the supposed leaders of the free world.

Agreed on that synopsis so far? Good, moving on:

3. I then flipped the argument around to prove a point to demonstrate the error of reasoning in your own argument, NOT TO STATE THAT IT WAS YOUR PRECISE POSITION ON BUSH OR ANYTHING ELSE. It was merely a tool to demonstrate how I believe your argument was false. I did that by stating the following:

quote:

On the same token, why are you not just as, if not more concerned about our president's actions of stripping away our civil liberties in the same manner as you are about Chavez?

Now look, I KNOW that it's unlikely that this is your position, okay? That was NOT my point in attempting to demonstrate that. Rather, I was demonstrating that if I were to use your logic, the reverse situation to which I created (i.e. you show less concern for Bush's liberty stripping vs Chavez) must also be true USING YOUR LOGICAL EXPLANATION.

Please tell me you see this - it's a really simple Logic 101 tool on arguments. You don't need to go any further to attempt to explain yourself here - you're only creating a straw man that was not what I was stating or intending to state here.

Can we please be done with this now?

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka No kidding--the articles are from 2003 and 2004. Does that make it irrelevant or something? 3 years is too long ago for you? Imagine getting stuck with a tax bill for more than an entire year of revenues! And regardless it was blatant misuse of government force to seize assets. No questions asked. Fuck the investors. A clear step in the direction of westernized democracy!

This guy was guilty. He was just another criminal up there. I agree on what he got for his fraud and I completely agree on how government solved that problem. I don't want that another asshole like Khodorkovksy seized an oil-rich corporation which revenues should belong to a state budged not to a some businessman-fuck.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka I actually have a subscription. Just got it actually. A gift from the father in-law. I definitely read it for the articles, if you catch my drift.

Well stick that tabloid into some far-far away hole. I personally don't see any difference in credibility between quotations taken from David Duke's site and those from that yellow-press.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Because it is and you should know it. Why don't you post your favorite David Duke excerpt and tell us all what you like about it? Gosh, if you love him so much, why don't you marry him? Care to elaborate?

I don't love him.

Last edited by star-traveller on Jan-17-2007 at 20:18